Why The Old Cessationist Consensus Broke Down

I'd like to make a few quick comments on why the old-time cessationist consensus broke down. In the 35 years I've been a Christian, we've seen the whole scene shift from dominant cessationism to dominant continuationism, including inside the EFCA. Why did this happen? Just a few guesses...

It started breaking down when credible theologians began re-examining the issue. As long as continuationism was being championed by crooks like Oral Roberts, kooks like Pat Robertson, show-boaters like Jimmy Swaggart, and heretics like Kenneth Hagin, it was easy to argue against it. John MacArthur could write a book named Charismatic Chaos and fill it with the most egregious examples of Pentecostal excess and doctrinal absurdities he could find, and he certainly didn't lack for material! (He still doesn't; the crooks, kooks, show-boaters, and heretics are still out there, thick and plentiful). But over the decades, serious-minded, conservative/inerrantist theologians began re-examining the issue, particularly among Calvinists. Once you started having D.A. Carson, John Piper, Stott, Packer, and Grudem re-examining it, a respectable middle zone opened up between being a Warfield/Walvoord/MacArthur cessationist, and the kooks. This process of theological re-examination opened the door to a respectable middle ground.

The cessationist argument also began to spring some leaks, or at least wasn't always defended skillfully. The identity of the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13 takes work to define. People other than the apostles manifested the controversial gifts (the Seventy, Stephen, Ananias II, Agabus), so that needs to be explained. If the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from Biblical inspiration -- I'm not convinced it is, but if -- then its continuation wouldn't threaten the integrity of the canon.

The new analyses challenged old paradigms. We realized that maybe we can hold to the continuation of the gift of languages on one hand and reject thAssemblies of God doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, at the same time (thus irritating two sides of the argument simultaneously!). We perhaps could believe in the spiritual gift of healing, and reject the unscriptural doctrine of universal healing in the atonement. We perhaps could believe in tongues, and yet say (correctly) that it's the miraculous ability to speak to God in a foreign language -- not meaningless gibberish.

Basically, I think the two traditional sides were lined up against each other like two Maginot lines, but various theologians over the past thirty years created a different shaped battlefield. I also think that the old groups (whether Pentecostal, Dallas, or Reformed) still haven't fully caught up with the latest scholarship in this area, though they're working on it.

(edited 9/5/09)